*Tour Aero Bike Tests*

[FlatlandClimber]

Yeah, I know. That's why they have the half dummy on there to not have geometry be a factor. The same rider will be best off with same geometry on any race bike.

I was just replying to "the lower stack will make you faster".

[cajer]

Ok I bought the magazine. They say 199/201 for the simplon and storck. However the report values don't use standardized equipment and are tested with DT Swiss 62 wheels. When test with the Zipp 404s they are 3 watts slower. Additionally the storck was tested as 1x, when adding a secon chainring it lost another 4 watts slower giving them 202/207 watts respectively.

Looking back at older tests, the cervelo s5 was when 205 watts. However when tested with 404s instead of the supplied wheels it was 3 watts faster giving 202 watts. Bringing it to parity with the simplon.

Looks like the UCI rules relaxations do make the bikes a bit faster than the smaller brands would be able to make otherwise. I expect more complex designs from the big brands to make things even faster maybe 2-4 watts faster than where they are current at.

[FlatlandClimber]

I'd definitely say, that 2-5W in such tests mean hardly anything to your real world riding. Firstly, this is at 45kph, which is a rare speed for non-pros to ride at on the flat, without tailwind, not in a peloton. Also, the accuracy of measuring equipment/set up is always a little questionable.
I'd not buy a bike looking this terrible, because they might be 2 watts faster than another bike.

[robeambro]

I'd definitely say, that 2-5W in such tests mean hardly anything to your real world riding. Firstly, this is at 45kph, which is a rare speed for non-pros to ride at on the flat, without tailwind, not in a peloton. Also, the accuracy of measuring equipment/set up is always a little questionable.
I'd not buy a bike looking this terrible, because they might be 2 watts faster than another bike.

Turning up for the group ride on that Simplon should not be allowed unless you also wear a red nose.

In seriousness, I've always said that for me, these are bikes for sprinters and dentist crit racers. At their speeds, the difference may well be quite substantial and worth the purchase.

Until a couple years ago, aero bikes could be far more versatile (I'm thinking of the latest Venge, Madone), now they're fast becoming one-trick-ponies. I am not sure brands are going to sell many of these new-gen aero bikes. Their looks are becoming far more polarising (or plain ugly like the Simplon), and even their use case is shrinking more and more.

[cajer]

I am personally not bothered at all by the look of the Simplon. I don't believe that more "classical" bike shapes look good. In fact I think they look boring. However the Simplon and Storck are just not faster than the S5. So I'm awaiting the big brand's take on the loosened UCI rules. As they the loosened rules allowed smaller players to match the big boys using the old rules.

[RDY]

I think it's very unlikely the Pride 2 isn't significantly faster than the S5. On the most basic level, the amount of frame infill in the main triangle is huge. But whether that would lead to a 'significant' difference in the average rider's use case is questionable.

[usr]

I'd definitely say, that 2-5W in such tests mean hardly anything to your real world riding. Firstly, this is at 45kph, which is a rare speed for non-pros to ride at on the flat, without tailwind, not in a peloton. Also, the accuracy of measuring equipment/set up is always a little questionable.
I'd not buy a bike looking this terrible, because they might be 2 watts faster than another bike.

Don't focus so much on the "you need to be strong for aero gains" argument, it's not as strong as it seems. It would still save you "considerable" (if you think they are considerable for a stronger rider) seconds per century if you are slow, as long as you are willing to ignore the fact that the seconds are a smaller fraction of the total because the total is so much bigger. 2-5W @45 are insignificant, period. On all performance levels, unless you happen to be going for an hour record. Significant aero gains are going from a Mavic R-SYS era bike to something modern, but any second generation aero (and most first generation aero, and many "non-aero" contemporaries of third gen aero) will do. And no subtle UCI change will *ever* allow a difference like that to happen again, not unless they go full TT (or recumbent, while they're at it, or velomobile - makes me wonder when recumbent/velomobile start annoying the ultracycling crowd to the point of getting explicitly excluded? Or are they already?)

[Lina]

>Build an innovative distinct looking aero bike
It looks ugly

>Build a dropped stay all rounder with some aero
It looks like every other bike on the market (even though it doesn't)

>Build a classic double diamond with round tubes
But what about aero? (also all of these actually look all the same unlike the dropped stay bikes which people always complain look the same)

Until a couple years ago, aero bikes could be far more versatile (I'm thinking of the latest Venge, Madone), now they're fast becoming one-trick-ponies. I am not sure brands are going to sell many of these new-gen aero bikes. Their looks are becoming far more polarising (or plain ugly like the Simplon), and even their use case is shrinking more and more.

What makes the Simplon far less versatile than the latest Venge or Madone?

[FlatlandClimber]

I am not an aero doubter... but I also understand the limitations of wind tunnel testing, also without a full rider on it.
2-5 W at 45kph is likely only 2/3rds of that at 40kph, which is likely the fastest a strong amateur rider can hold prolonged periods of time (on the flat, no wind, no peloton).
Other things are relevant in the real world as well.
Apparently the biggest factor here seem to be the wheels, not the frame. Also, in the real world, the bike has a head unit, 2 bottles etc.
There are so many factors that make these differences difficult to quantify, that's all I'm saying.
Aero gains in general are absolutely a thing and make a difference

[Lina]

Yeah, one should look at aero testing at most as a guideline. And the rider is still the biggest cause of drag on a bike. So getting into an aero position is more important than the frame aero as long as the frames are in the same ballpark. In a hypothetical case where you had an extremely aero frame that's 10 watts more aero than anything else in testing but it's impossible to have below 40 cm bars on it and you can't get as low as you'd want to on it and it's still a lot slower than some other frame where you can get into an aero position.

[usr]

What makes the Simplon far less versatile than the latest Venge or Madone?

Compared to those? Nothing. Compared to more conventional roadbikes? You can't switch to a seatpost with an exotic setback if you happen to need it, you can't really switch to bars with your favorite drop shape if you don't like the one on tap (however I happen to do like that "sectioned drop" on the Pride2, just not the rest of it), you can't - no, that's about it. All other supposed lack of versatility is wildly overstated.

Well, except maybe for use in unpredictable wind scenarios, because usually aero bikes looks work out so badly with low section wheels (particularly the bigger frame sizes) that I'd rather keep a dedicated bike for windy/unpredictable than just a dedicated set of low section wheels for the aero bike. What I mean with unpredictable wind is not so much days that might be gusty, but entire weeks with no opportunity to swap. If I need to select a bike ten days ahead there's no way I'll go deep section. Therefore, almost all my "flagship rides" are on the ancient aluminum 11s, not on the amazing aero wonder. I switched the aero to low section once, decided to never repeat, it was so ugly. Not even in a moonless night. I guess it would not be so bad for sizes M or smaller, but a 2XL aero frame on low section wheels - don't try this at home!

[usr]

I am not an aero doubter... but I also understand the limitations of wind tunnel testing, also without a full rider on it.
2-5 W at 45kph is likely only 2/3rds of that at 40kph, which is likely the fastest a strong amateur rider can hold prolonged periods of time (on the flat, no wind, no peloton).

It doesn't matter at all wether you ride 45 or 30: in both cases the watts go almost exclusively to overcoming drag and if drag is x% smaller it's x% smaller, period. In clean air, drag remains x% smaller even below walking speeds (but of course it's not dominant at walking speed, but drag's dominance is as clearly established at 30 as it is at 45).

What does make a bit of a difference is that yaw angles aren't as much of an issue when you go faster (lower angle from the same wind speed) and that the clean/dirty air threshold shifts with increasing speed.

(heh, just realizing that I'm apparently posting the same general directing reply to the same person, not many that way)

[Requiem84]

Few others things to consider:

- Bike is part of the marginal gains optimalization
- Maybe 3 watts at 40 km/h, but let's add a good helmet (-x watts), tight clothing (-x watts) and cumulatively, you might end up at 10 watts benefit.
- On downhill sections impact is much larger given the increased speed
- In groups riders in the front may ride 45 km/h for shorter periods
- Why compare aero bike 1 only to aero bike 2? Better comparison is a complete non-aero bike (let's say 5-6 years old) to a new aero bike. Difference will be much bigger than 3 watts.

And besides, even minimal watts can help mentally!

[Roadbiker10]

"Why do you care about aero frames when you can save so many more watts doing x-y-z"?

I never understood these kind of arguments. You can surely do all those other things and use an aero frame, or whatever else people think is insignificant.

"Why do you care about saving watts if you're not racing"?

Another one I don't get. Do people not like to go fast? Is that not the point of this sport? Is that not enough of a reason?

Maybe people frown upon buying speed, I don't know. There's something about it that provokes peoples feelings. Pretty much every other cyclist I ride with comes with these kinds of arguments. Maybe it can be called aerodoping.

[robeambro]

- Why compare aero bike 1 only to aero bike 2? Better comparison is a complete non-aero bike (let's say 5-6 years old) to a new aero bike. Difference will be much bigger than 3 watts.

As per old Tour figures, an old Emonda with Zipp 404s has a CdA of 0.1969 (with half mannequin), A Madone with same wheels 0.1746. A difference in CdA of 0.0223 (source: https://www.tour-magazin.de/uploads/tx_ ... 5ab73.jpeg).

If we plug a 0.0223 CdA difference in a calculator such as http://www.aeroweenie.com/calc.html , it gives approximately:
- a 8w difference at 30km/h,
- ca. 27w at 45km/h,
- ca. 55w at 60km/h.
etc.

The differences would possibly be even smaller than the above with a full rider on board.
The Emonda was as aero as a brick and equipped with round handlebars, today's bikes (probably even stuff like the Aethos) are more aero than that and anybody can use aero handlebars, so the difference would be even smaller.
So yeah, at 30km/h maybe most of us are sacrificing a handful of watts vs a full aero frame?

Not to mention that who knows exactly what happens when you're drafting, but definitely the savings are smaller.

Descending, sure (however - seems like everyone is hammering descents pedalling at VO2 max in this thread..). Sprinting, absolutely, give me all of those watts.
Regular riding and traditional road racing especially on hilly terrain? I'm not so sure.

Be my guest if you want to pick your frame based on these wind tunnel tests.